The first thing you have to do with a film that lasts 208 minutes is to decide if you are willing to commit to spending that much time watching the film. I hesitated, particularly during the first half hour, but I am glad I stuck with it, because I have never had the desire to read the historical novel, but thought that watching a film of the novel might be worthwhile. I do have to say that my impression is that perhaps this novel is too "big" to be translated successfully into film.
The biggest problem for me with this film is that I think Henry Fonda was totally wrong for the character of Pierre. And I say that as a person who usually respects Fonda's film roles. But this one didn't work for me at all.
Another problem with the film is that some of the actors were not American speakers, and clearly the mouths don't move properly with the words. Obviously there was some dubbing here, and I always find that distracting.
There are a number of performances I did enjoy watching. Audrey Hepburn was great as Audrey Hepburn. But it worked. Mel Ferrer does nicely here, although as I watched the film it occurred to me how few films with him I have seen. Oskar Homolka's performance is interesting...not necessarily good, but interesting...and he looked the stereotype of a Russian general. I didn't realize one of the actors was John Mills, but once I did realize it, I found it interesting (not a big part).
I can't make up my mind about Herbert Lom as Napoleon Bonaparte. I do think he is an under-appreciated actor, but I don't know enough about Napoleon to decide if the portrayal is good.
In terms of the title of my review, in many places the film is rather lavish. In other places some scenes seem incredibly cheap. A few early battle scenes look cheap, but the main battle scenes are rather impressive. There's one scene where Fonda's character goes to the front at night, and it so cheap looking -- you see his and Ferrer's shadow on what was obviously a painting of trees.
Was it worth nearly 3 and a half hours? Well...yes...I guess so, but I would have no desire to watch it again.
The biggest problem for me with this film is that I think Henry Fonda was totally wrong for the character of Pierre. And I say that as a person who usually respects Fonda's film roles. But this one didn't work for me at all.
Another problem with the film is that some of the actors were not American speakers, and clearly the mouths don't move properly with the words. Obviously there was some dubbing here, and I always find that distracting.
There are a number of performances I did enjoy watching. Audrey Hepburn was great as Audrey Hepburn. But it worked. Mel Ferrer does nicely here, although as I watched the film it occurred to me how few films with him I have seen. Oskar Homolka's performance is interesting...not necessarily good, but interesting...and he looked the stereotype of a Russian general. I didn't realize one of the actors was John Mills, but once I did realize it, I found it interesting (not a big part).
I can't make up my mind about Herbert Lom as Napoleon Bonaparte. I do think he is an under-appreciated actor, but I don't know enough about Napoleon to decide if the portrayal is good.
In terms of the title of my review, in many places the film is rather lavish. In other places some scenes seem incredibly cheap. A few early battle scenes look cheap, but the main battle scenes are rather impressive. There's one scene where Fonda's character goes to the front at night, and it so cheap looking -- you see his and Ferrer's shadow on what was obviously a painting of trees.
Was it worth nearly 3 and a half hours? Well...yes...I guess so, but I would have no desire to watch it again.